University Students’ Ecological Footprint and Lifestyle Changes: Awareness vs. Action

Abstract

A land-grant university in the Southeastern U.S. has integrated sustainability into an environmental science course (ES100, Introduction to Environmental Science). Two assignments—calculating ecological footprints (EF) and designing a Lifestyle Change Project (LCP)—ask students to consider their environmental impact (EF) and make a lifestyle change to reduce their ecological footprints (LCP). However, these two aspects have been evaluated separately, and assessing their connectivity is less explored. Here, we utilized data from the course to (1) assess the size of students’ EFs; (2) identify Lifestyle Change Projects; and (3) evaluate the relationship between EF and their lifestyle changes. Results showed that the average EF was 7.3 global hectares (gha), which is three times higher than the global average of 2.6 gha. Students performed lifestyle changes focusing on shelter (26%), food (15%), mobility (13%), and goods (46%). Generally, students planned to focus their LCP on their highest calculated category for their EF (R² = 0.88, p < 0.05). Surprisingly, this alignment shifted once students put their LCPs into practice (R² = 0.44, p < 0.05). Our findings suggest that attitudes toward EF results do not always translate into actual behavioral changes in students’ lifestyles. Our study highlighted the effectiveness of the EF calculator as a tool for potentially influencing students’ lifestyle behavior in reducing their ecological footprints, thus enhancing their ecological literacy.

1. Introduction

Universities play a pivotal role in advancing a sustainable future by fostering the competencies essential for addressing environmental challenges (Barth & Rieckmann, 2012; Collins et al., 2018; Cortese, 2003). Through education, universities equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to tackle sustainability issues effectively by integrating qualitative and quantitative tools and indicators (Corres et al., 2024; Fernández et al., 2016; Kapitulčinová et al., 2018; Lambrechts & Van Liedekerke, 2014; Stough et al., 2018).

North Carolina State University (NCSU) has established itself as a leader in campus sustainability through a comprehensive approach to embedding sustainability across its operations, education, and community outreach (North Carolina State University, 2024). As part of these efforts, NCSU has integrated sustainability into its academic offerings, particularly in courses like introductory environmental science (ES 100). This foundational course emphasizes developing students’ awareness and responsibility as environmental stewards. Two cornerstone activities of this course—calculating personal ecological footprints (EF) and designing a Lifestyle Change Project (LCP)—serve as practical applications of these principles, and they bookend the course as the first and final project assignments. These activities enable students to gain a quantitative understanding of their resource consumption and environmental impact. The activities also ask students to reflect on their daily habits and identify actionable changes to reduce their ecological footprints.

The EF is a measure that indicates how many resources from the environment are required to support an individual’s specific lifestyle (Cordero et al., 2008; Lambert & Cushing, 2017). This way, they will become aware of how their lifestyle affects the environment (e.g., carbon emissions, water consumption, etc.). Efforts to help students understand their environmental impact through EF determination should not end with merely calculating the EF. It is essential that students learn to make meaningful changes to their lifestyles to reduce their EF. Incorporating Lifestyle Change Projects after determining students’ EF is critical for fostering behavioral shifts among students (Cordero et al., 2008; Lambert & Cushing, 2017). Such experiential learning can promote reflection and action, enabling students to address the root causes of unsustainable consumption while building awareness of their role in mitigating global environmental challenges.

By leveraging data from the introduction to environmental science (ES100) course in Fall 2023 at NCSU, we sought to bridge the gap between environmental awareness and practical action for change. Our study evaluates the relationship between personal EF results and lifestyle change initiatives, offering a dual approach—quantitative and qualitative—to assess and promote sustainability within a campus setting. Our objectives were to (1) assess the size of students’ EFs and identify the most significant contributors (e.g., food, shelter, mobility, and goods); (2) categorize the specific, creative, and critical lifestyle changes students made to reduce their EF; (3) analyze whether students’ EF results directly influenced the lifestyle changes they chose to undertake; (4) determine the motivating factors and challenges they faced as they made lifestyle changes; and (5) understand students’ perceptions of the EF calculator as a tool for recognizing their role in reducing resource consumption. We hypothesized that students’ lifestyle changes are motivated by their EF results, with students prioritizing reductions in the largest contributing footprints. Our study provides a data-driven foundation for integrating EF calculation and lifestyle change initiatives into educational programs. This study underscores the value of connecting theory to practice in sustainability education by combining personalized EF metrics with experiential learning.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location

This study was conducted at North Carolina State University (NCSU), Raleigh, NC, USA (35°47′14″ N, 78°40′14″ W). The university is located within a land area of 8.5 km² and comprises 12 colleges and 68 departments, hosting 38,400 students, 2400 faculty, and 7100 staff (https://www.ncsu.edu/rankings/, accessed on 10 March 2025). It is a land-grant institution and a Research 1 university. As a thriving research university, NCSU’s contributions toward a sustainable future are unique and vital. NCSU prepares its students with sustainability knowledge and real-world experience, fueling research breakthroughs and solutions that solve complex sustainability challenges while driving efficiency and excellence (North Carolina State University, 2024).

2.2. Sampling Population

The 282 enrolled students in the ES 100 class for the Fall Semester 2023 were the subject population for this study. ES100 is a university-wide course offering that is required for Environmental Science majors, but it also serves as a General Education course in natural science. Thus, its demographics are diverse and multi-level, representing multiple colleges and departments. While engaging in the EF calculation activity and conducting their LCP, students were exposed to related course topics, including Sustainability, Environmental Health and Toxicology, Food and Hunger, Farming (Conventional and Sustainable Practices), Climate Change, Air Pollution, Water Use Management, Water Pollution, Conventional and Sustainable Energy, and Solid, Toxic, and Hazardous Wastes. These topics were delivered to help students better understand and develop their projects.

2.3. The Ecological Footprint Calculation Activity

The ecological footprint accounts for human consumption of life-supporting resources (e.g., food resources, shelter, transportation, etc.) and one regulating ecosystem service (i.e., climate stabilization through carbon sequestration) (Borucke et al., 2013; Galli et al., 2014). The EF is expressed in global hectares (gha) (Galli et al., 2016) and allows these metrics to be compared to global benchmark value (Monfreda et al., 2004). Although the EF also accounts for biocapacity metrics, in this study, we mainly focused on the EF results.

The EF calculator (https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en, accessed on 24 August 2023) comprises 15 basic questions based on five footprint categories: food, shelter (which includes housing and energy use), mobility, goods, and services (Figure 1). In this study, we focused on food, shelter, mobility, and goods. At the end, the EF calculator reports individuals’ EF results and presents them in several ways: the Ecological Footprint, Percentage Contribution for each Consumption Category, Number of Global Hectares by Land Components, and Number of Planet Earths (Figure 1).

On 24 August 2023, ES100 students were introduced to the EF calculator and given instructions on how to take account of their consumption when answering the calculator questions. Students calculated their personal EF using their mobile phones or laptop computers, which took approximately 20 min. At the end of the exercise, students were asked to reflect on their individual EF results and answer the following questions: (1) What is your ecological footprint? (2) How many tons of carbon dioxide do you generate annually? (3) How many planets are needed for the amount of resources you use personally? (4) What represents the largest consumption category? (5) If you had to choose one of the consumption categories to decrease, which would you choose to reduce your ecological footprint? (6) Why did you choose that specific category to reduce your consumption? Students uploaded their responses in a Google Form. The overall EF results were discussed in class on 29 August 2023. At this stage, the attitudes or intentions of the students were being collected.

2.4. The Lifestyle Change Activity

On 28 September 2023, the LCP was introduced as part of the students’ final deliverables for the course. This project encouraged science-based, critical, and creative decision-making in each student’s life, especially after learning their EF. The students were given the freedom to choose a project regardless of their EF results. They were not restricted to the options they reported on the Google Form for EF results, as long as their chosen project fell within the four specified LCP categories they were allowed to work on. The project involved quantifying some aspects of students’ daily lives (electricity use, driving patterns, food consumption, purchasing, etc.), making a change toward a more environmentally friendly practice for a limited time period, and quantifying the likely environmental impact of the change in practice. Students could work within the major ecological footprint categories: food, shelter, mobility, and goods, as long as it was attainable for two weeks. Students were asked to submit their proposals by 15 October 2023 and conduct their lifestyle change measurements from 16 to 31 October 2023. In the first week, students were asked to measure their usual habits (e.g., showering, driving, etc.) and record their consumption (e.g., estimated gallons of water used, time spent in the shower, gasoline consumption, CO₂ produced, etc.) in a datasheet template provided. In the second week, they needed to measure their changed habits (e.g., reduced time in the shower, money saved, etc.) and record these data on the same datasheet they made in the first week. Students then processed and analyzed their data to determine the magnitude of their change.

The final output of the LCP is an infographic/poster highlighting their 2-week lifestyle change results. Students were asked to extrapolate their calculations to the whole NCSU student population for one year (38,400 students). Then, they presented their findings creatively to communicate the impact to a public audience. Their posters were highlighted in the university’s Teaching and Visualization Lab at James Hunt Library on 21 November 2023. The theme of their presentation was “Earth Day Every Day”, highlighting that we must practice Earth Day as a daily undertaking.

The LCP also included a final reflection paper, which was collected on 5 December 2023. It was at this stage when the behaviors of the students toward their LCP were obtained. In this reflection paper, students described their project and answered the following questions: (1) What message did you craft, and what were the challenges? (2) What/Who were the influencing factors in your project? (3) What did you learn from a big-picture perspective about environmental science through this project, and how did critical and creative thinking inform your process? Each question in the reflection paper was analyzed by identifying keywords, overall thoughts, and other relevant elements for each student. These responses were then grouped into broader thematic categories, such as environmental concern, self-realization, peer influence, and social responsibility, among others. To further examine the relationships between these categories, we applied hierarchical clustering to determine the distance and patterns among the clusters. The reflection paper was collected on 5 December 2023, at which point the students’ behaviors toward their LCP were assessed. According to the timeline, the “attitudes” component of this study was gathered on 24 August 2023, during the EF calculation activity, while the ”behaviors” component was obtained on 5 December 2023 through their LCP reflection papers.

2.5. Data Processing and Analysis

We used the Google Form responses from students’ EF calculation and Lifestyle Change Project submissions in the Fall 2023 semester for content analysis. Permission from NC State University to use these data was obtained. We used descriptive analyses (frequency and percentages) to analyze the demographic profiles of the students, student responses on EF and LCP activities, and other quantitative data. We used the dplyr package (Wickham et al., 2019) to perform an analysis of variance (ANOVA) among different student year levels regarding their ecological footprint, carbon footprint, and number of planets results, and to perform Tukey’s HSD Test to determine statistical differences. The ggplot2 package (Wickham, 2016) was used to generate the corresponding bar plots. Similarly, ggplot2 was also used to create a circular plot comparing categorical responses regarding what students learned from the LCP activity. For the linear regression analysis examining the relationships among the categories with the highest ecological footprint, the categories students wished to reduce, and the categories they actually chose to reduce for their LCP, we utilized the reshape and rlang packages (Wickham, 2007). We used Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) to fit the data and derive a regression line. Additionally, the dendextend package was employed for hierarchical clustering of the motivating factors for pursuing a lifestyle change and the challenges encountered in undertaking the LCP. All analyses were conducted using the R Statistical Language (R Core Team, 2023).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Respondents’ Demographics

The class was diverse, consisting of students from multiple year levels and representing ten colleges. Over one-fifth of the respondents were from the College of Natural Resources. The largest group of enrollees was sophomores (37%), while seniors made up only a small portion of the participants (10%) (

Table 1. General demographics of ES100 (Introduction to Environmental Science) class of North Carolina State University, Fall Semester 2023.

		Respondents	Percentage (%)
College/Department	Natural Resources	63	23
	Management	48	17
	Engineering	42	15
	Humanities and Social Science	37	13
	University College	37	13
	Sciences	18	6
	Agriculture and Life Sciences	17	6
	Education	14	5
	Design	3	1
	Textiles	3	1
Total		282	100
Status
	Sophomore	104	37
	Freshman	81	29
	Junior	67	24
	Senior	30	10
Total		282	100

).

3.2. Ecological Footprint Results

The average ecological footprint (EF) of all respondents was 7.3 gha (min. = 3.5 gha, max. = 11.5 gha), and the average CO₂ emission was 7.6 tons CO₂ yr⁻¹ (min. = 3.0 tons CO₂ yr⁻¹, max. = 11.4 tons CO₂ yr⁻¹). The results also indicated that, on average, 4.5 planets would be needed to support the consumption and waste of the respondents. While the differences among students by year in college were not statistically significant due to large standard deviations, the general trends are interesting. Overall, first-year students had the highest ecological footprint (8.14 gha), whereas senior students only had 6.75 gha (p > 0.05, Figure 2a). Similarly, first-year students also had the highest carbon footprints (8.80 tons CO₂ yr⁻¹), while senior students only had 7.22 tons CO₂ yr⁻¹ (p > 0.05, Figure 2b). As a result, first-year students need the most planets, at five, while junior students only need four planets (p > 0.05, Figure 2c).

Based on their Google Form responses, ES100 students found the EF calculator user-friendly, with straightforward questions about their consumption behaviors. The tool also encouraged students to engage in discussions about sustainable consumption in the context of their daily lives. The way the EF results were presented helped students fully grasp the scale of their consumption impact. As other authors have contended, the EF calculator can be seen as a “learning by doing” tool that utilizes the theory of “experiential learning” (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006).

Our analysis reveals that students were able to recognize the difference between their individual ecological footprints and both national and global averages. Among the 282 students who participated in the EF calculation, the average EF was 7.3 gha, which is 0.5 gha lower than the average EF per person in the U.S. (Footprint Data Foundation et al., 2024). However, students’ EF was nearly three times higher than the global average of 2.6 gha per person. Correspondingly, students had higher-than-average CO₂ emissions, with an average of 7.6 tons of CO₂ per year, compared to the global average of only 1.56 tons of CO₂ per year—almost five times higher than the global figure (Footprint Data Foundation et al., 2024). As a result, an additional 2.8 planets would be required to accommodate global consumption and waste if everyone on Earth lived like the NCSU ES 100 students. While these results reflect a larger ecological footprint of the students enrolled in the course that semester from a global perspective, they also present an opportunity for students to reduce their footprints and live more sustainably.

3.3. Lifestyle Change

The highest category (46%) of the LCPs focused on goods-related routines, including actions like reducing or reusing packaging materials, recycling, and using biodegradable products (

Table 2. Summary of Lifestyle Change Projects conducted by ES100 students.

Footprint Category	Lifestyle Change Projects	Participating Students	Percentage (%)
Shelter	Reduce shower time	35	12
	Conserve electricity	14	5
	Minimize faucet water wastage	11	4
	Energy-saving appliances	5	2
	Gardening/Composting	7	2
		72	26
Food	Meatless days	12	4
	Be a vegetarian	8	3
	Minimize food wastage	8	3
	Be a locavore	8	3
	Eat less processed food	6	2
		42	15
Mobility	Walk/Bike	12	4
	Carpooling	9	3
	Drive less	8	3
	Use public transport	5	2
	Use eco-friendly car/fuel	3	1
		37	13
Goods	Reduce, reuse, recycle	5	2
	Reduce packaging disposal	4	1
	Use biodegradables	2	1
	Reduce plastic water bottle consumption	57	20
	Reduce packaging wastes	20	7
	Reusable shopping bags	13	5
	Use recyclable containers	11	4
	Go green when buying things	10	4
	Recycled clothing	9	3
		131	46
	Total	282	100

). About 26% of the projects focused on shelter-related activities, such as energy and water-saving activities, waste management, and plastic avoidance. In contrast, approximately 15% of the LCPs were food-related, including initiatives like becoming a locavore (a person whose diet consists principally of locally grown food), eating less meat or processed foods, and adopting a vegetarian diet. Approximately 13% of students focused on transportation-related changes, such as carpooling, driving less, and using public transport.

Consumption habits carry a sense of responsibility. A growing awareness of the scale of food, materials, energy, and goods consumed daily, along with an understanding of the implications of consumption choices, is essential for taking steps toward sustainable behavior (Collins et al., 2018). Students may have initially been unaware of the additive environmental impacts of their lifestyle choices, but these activities helped enhance their knowledge of environmental “effectiveness”. Additionally, the lectures on sustainability and various environmental topics—such as food, conventional and sustainable farming, and energy conservation—helped them better understand the consequences of their actions.

3.3.1. Goods

Overall, LCPs aimed at reducing the goods footprint accounted for 46% of the Google Form responses. For example, 20% of the students reduced their plastic bottle consumption by using personal water bottles or reusable food containers (Table 2). This is particularly important given the dramatic increase in the production and use of plastics in recent years (Flint Ashery, 2022). Disposable plastics, such as grocery bags, bottles, straws, and utensils, are designed for single use, and while they are inexpensive, they have low recyclability. Additionally, they are a major source of pollution in the natural environment (Flint Ashery, 2022; Koide et al., 2021). Research indicates that humanity’s current levels of natural resource use and waste generation exceed Earth’s sustainable capacity by approximately 50% (Lambert & Cushing, 2017). Americans, in particular, have a substantial impact on this overconsumption, as their average rate of resource use is six times higher than what is considered sustainable (Footprint Data Foundation et al., 2024).

A total of 16% of the students were willing to actively commit to the principles of reduce, reuse, and recycle; reducing packaging disposal, or using biodegradable materials to minimize waste production. These findings align with a study conducted at San Jose State University in California, which revealed that students there had the highest footprint in the goods and services category, highlighting regional similarities in consumption patterns and sustainability practices (Lambert & Cushing, 2017). In contrast, an author observed a general reluctance among students to address consumption patterns related to goods as part of their sustainability efforts (Collins et al., 2018).

3.3.2. Shelter

About 26% of the LCPs are shelter-focused (Table 2). Behavioral changes in reducing water consumption (e.g., shower time) or electricity consumption can be challenging; thus, only 12% of the students are willing to reduce their time in the shower room or at the sink (4%) as part of changing their daily routines. Only 5% of the students chose to conserve electricity. Some students could not reduce their energy consumption, as it would require a drastic lifestyle change to make a difference and reduce their EF. Other students stated that energy use at home could be more efficient, e.g., turning off lights, avoiding leaving electronic equipment on standby, etc.. About 2% of the students felt less able to commit to gardening or composting due to limited accommodation options because most were renting. Also, many first- and second-year students lived in university housing facilities, making it difficult to try composting.

3.3.3. Food

The third-largest category of the LCP is food, with 15% of students trying to reduce their food consumption (Table 2). The university’s location near downtown, with easy access to public transit and reasonably priced organic food and fresh produce, may have facilitated dietary changes. Students recognized that modifying their diets could significantly reduce their ecological footprint, yet only 15% were willing to make these changes. The number of students willing to shift their food-related behaviors was three times lower than those who focused on the goods category lifestyle changes (46%). It is important to note that first- and second-year students, who comprised the largest groups in this study (Table 1), also had the highest average ecological footprints. Many first-year students eat meals at university cafeterias, which limits the extent to which they can make lifestyle changes related to their food footprint. While the food footprint was the largest category (42%) based on the EF results, only 15% of the class opted to make behavioral changes in this area. These 15% of students are willing to commit to dietary changes and have expressed a readiness to adopt a reduced meat diet, transition to vegetarian or vegan diets, minimize packaged food and food waste, and become locavores by purchasing locally sourced food products.

Food consumption patterns among students are primarily influenced by their dietary habits. A report from Cardiff University, UK, showed that young students often show a lower preference for local, plant-based, organic products and tend to consume more meat (Collins et al., 2018). Our ES100 students reflected in their LCP Reflection Paper that food consumption is a basic human need, making it difficult to change. Many of the food products available on the market today are conventional (as opposed to organic), imported (as opposed to local), and highly processed and packaged (e.g., ready-to-eat meals). To reduce the environmental impact of food consumption, a radical shift in food supply chains is necessary (Galli et al., 2017).

3.3.4. Mobility

Around 13% of the students considered incorporating public transportation into their daily routines instead of driving (Table 2). Possible advantages for this choice include rising gasoline prices (making it appealing economically), some of the ”no student parking” policies throughout campus, the large number of students who live on campus or have easy access to public transportation, and the university’s free or highly subsidized transit passes. Additionally, NCSU operates its transportation system, the Wolfline, which allows students to commute freely around campus. The EF results may have motivated students to learn about and take advantage of the Wolfline. On the negative side, we assume that many student workers, particularly those with part-time jobs or those who live off-campus, were less likely to reduce their car travel due to their employment locations.

Not surprisingly, lifestyle changes involving high costs or investments, such as switching from an SUV to a hybrid car or adopting more energy-efficient fuels, were among the least undertaken by students (1%). The drastic environmental shift required for switching to eco-friendly automobiles generally takes longer to plan and implement (Lambert & Cushing, 2017). Additionally, long-term change that requires significant investment may not be a wise option for a two-week project like our LCP. Greater awareness or incentives may be needed to encourage this kind of shift.

3.4. Relationship Between EF Results and the Choice of Lifestyle Change

One of the questions asked after the EF calculation activity was, “If you had to choose one of the footprint categories to decrease, which would you choose to reduce your ecological footprint?” The students’ primary responses revealed that the category with the highest EF was typically the same category they wished to reduce, and this relationship was significantly correlated (R² = 0.88, p < 0.05;

Table 3. Categories with the highest ecological footprint, categories students wanted to reduce, and categories students chose to reduce for their Lifestyle Change Projects.

Category	Categories with the Highest Ecological Footprint		Categories Students Wanted to Reduce		Categories Students Chose to Reduce for Their Lifestyle Change Project
	No. of Students	%	No. of Students	%	No. of Students	%
Food	119	42	83	29	42	15
Goods	77	27	88	31	131	46
Mobility	50	18	78	28	37	13
Shelter	36	13	33	12	72	26
Total	282	100	282	100	282	100

). However, after the LCP presentation and evaluation of their LCP Reflection Paper, it was surprising that the relationship between the categories with the highest EF and the categories students chose to reduce for their LCP weakened (R² = 0.44, p < 0.05; Table 3), suggesting that their relative awareness and intentions did not match their eventual actions. Thus, our results do not support our hypothesis that students’ lifestyle changes are mainly motivated by their EF results.

The food category had the highest EF (119 students, 42%). Of these, 83 students (29%) wished to have this category reduced, but about half (42 students, 15%) were prepared to implement the LCP with a focus on the food category. Around 77 students, or 27%, identified the goods category as their highest EF; nearly the same number (88 students, 31%) wished to reduce this goods category, yet almost double (131 students, 46%) conducted their LCP using the goods category. Similarly, there were 50 students (18%) who identified mobility as their largest footprint from the EF calculation, but the number of students who wished to reduce this footprint was 28% (78 students). However, only 13% of students chose to address mobility in their LCP. Regarding the shelter category, 13% of the students identified shelter-related consumption as their highest EF, with 12% of students willing to reduce it. Yet, double the number of students (26%) were conducting their LCP with a focus on the shelter category in terms of lifestyle changes.

The slight disconnect between the categories with the highest EF and the categories students chose to reduce for their LCP is unexpected and warrants further analysis.

3.5. Why Is There a Disconnect Between the Largest Consumption and Lifestyle Change?

The disconnect between students’ largest consumption categories and the lifestyle changes they were willing to make for their assignment can be attributed to several factors. One of the reasons is attributed to awareness vs. action. While students may recognize that their largest consumption areas (e.g., food, mobility, shelter) significantly contribute to their ecological footprint, translating this awareness into actual behavioral changes can be challenging. The desire to reduce consumption may not always align with the willingness or ability to make those changes in their daily routines.

Another hindrance is practical limitations. For example, reducing the food footprint may involve costly shifts toward organic or locally sourced food, which might not be financially feasible for many students, especially those on a limited budget or a meal plan. Inconvenience is another reason that could disconnect awareness of the footprint from the willingness to change it. Certain lifestyle changes, such as changing transportation habits or adopting a vegetarian diet, can be perceived as difficult or inconvenient. This is particularly true for students who rely on their cars for commuting or are used to eating meat-based diets. In addition, many students live in shared or rented housing, which limits their ability to make changes related to energy consumption, waste management, or other shelter-related behaviors. Peer behaviors, campus culture, and social norms can also influence students. If sustainable behaviors are not widely adopted or promoted among their peers, students might not feel motivated to make significant lifestyle changes.

Another reason for the disconnect is the limited flexibility in selecting an EF category for their LCP. Students are required to choose only one category, even when multiple options may be equally viable. Consequently, they may opt for the easiest LCP to implement rather than their initially preferred choice based on their EF results.

Our findings further indicate that attitudes toward EF results do not always translate into actual behavioral changes in students’ lifestyles, which raises concerns about the accuracy of using attitudes as a measure of activity success. It is therefore crucial to assess behavior rather than attitude in LCP evaluations, as relying on attitude as an indicator of success can be misleading (Nilsson et al., 2020). For instance, individuals may hold positive attitudes toward conservation issues, yet personal or societal constraints can prevent them from adopting behaviors that align with these concerns (Lacroix & Gifford, 2018; Lorenzoni et al., 2007).

These reasons suggest that while students may recognize the importance of reducing their environmental impact, the barriers to making significant lifestyle changes are complex and multifaceted. Further support, education, and practical solutions are needed to bridge the gap between awareness and actual behavioral change.

3.6. Motivating Factors in Deciding What to Change in Students’ Daily Routines

In addition to the knowledge gained from the ecological footprint (EF) activity, several factors contributed to students’ decisions to change their behavior. Through hierarchical clustering (Figure 3a), we identified key influences that motivated students to take action.

Many students indicated in their reflection papers that their primary motivation for lifestyle change was self-realization and environmental concern (45%). The opportunity to reflect on their habits fostered a sense of responsibility. They were also driven by a desire to contribute to sustainability and reduce their environmental impact. Based on their reflection papers, many students were motivated to share their LCP experiences with others (11%). They saw their actions not only as a way to change their daily lifestyle but also as a way to inspire and educate their peers. Students also felt a sense of social responsibility (7%) to take action and make a difference in their communities. Many students mentioned that the support and encouragement from family members and peers (7%) played a role in their decision to adopt new behaviors. It might be safe to assume that peer influence can be particularly powerful, as students may feel more motivated to engage in sustainable practices when their social circle is also involved. Research suggests that students are more receptive to messages and more likely to internalize them when the messenger is a peer who shares their age and experiences (Vangeepuram et al., 2020). Peer influence plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes and behaviors, with students being more inclined to adopt lifestyle changes when trusted and well-liked friends lead the way (Bell et al., 2017; Debar et al., 2011). In some cases, students were motivated by the potential for financial savings (5%). For example, reducing energy use, buying less packaged food, and using public transport instead of driving can reduce costs, which provides an additional incentive for behavior change. Some students were driven by the desire to experiment and innovate (2%) in finding new, more sustainable ways to live. Curiosity (9%) about the environmental impact of their behaviors was also a driving force. These insights encouraged them to make more informed decisions about their consumption patterns. Understanding these motivating factors can help design more effective sustainability campaigns and interventions that align with students’ values, social connections, and practical concerns.

3.7. Challenges in Performing Lifestyle Change

Based on reflection papers submitted after conducting the LCP, the challenge of self-discipline (23% of responses) played a central role in students’ difficulties when trying to implement lifestyle changes (Figure 3b). As noted by the students, consistency (17%) is a considerable obstacle when altering habits already ingrained in their daily routines. The process of breaking established habits and routines—especially those that have been developed over time—can be quite difficult and requires sustained effort and motivation. Many students mentioned that quitting their habitual regimens (11%), such as consuming meat or using cars for daily transport, is difficult. These behaviors have been part of their routines for years and are often tied to convenience and comfort. Behavioral changes, like reducing food waste or limiting plastic use, might not yield immediate or visible results, making it hard for students to stay motivated and consistent over time.

Few students who chose dietary changes, such as vegetarianism, found it difficult to maintain (6%). Those who did struggle might have faced challenges due to their lack of familiarity with vegetarian meals, the challenge of adjusting social eating habits, or cravings for meat-based foods. Several students noted that changing their food habits—such as switching to organic, plant-based, or local food—required more time and money. Students who attempted to change their transportation habits encountered several barriers, such as weather conditions (e.g., rain or extreme heat) that made biking or walking less appealing. Although carpooling was a preferred option for reducing their mobility footprint, students often struggled with finding others to carpool with, dealing with scheduling conflicts, or simply getting a ride.

An issue in keeping track of lifestyle changes is the absence of immediate gratification. When students do not see the immediate results of their actions (such as energy savings or waste reduction), they may lose motivation and revert to old behaviors. Peer pressure or social norms can also influence whether students persist with their lifestyle changes. For example, if their friends are not participating in similar eco-friendly practices, students may feel less compelled to continue. For many students, constantly making mindful decisions about sustainability can lead to decision fatigue, especially when they have many other responsibilities. To effectively promote long-term behavior change, students need practical solutions, community support, and resources that make sustainability efforts more manageable and rewarding. By understanding these barriers, institutions can better support students in making lasting and meaningful lifestyle changes.

3.8. Student Perception of the Importance of Lifestyle Change

Around 24% of the students expressed that even small, individual actions, when accumulated, can significantly impact society (Figure 4). This reflects an understanding that every individual’s efforts contribute to larger environmental goals, emphasizing the power of collective action. About 18% of students acknowledged that no matter how small their actions may seem, they are still valuable. The belief that making a stand and contributing in any way can make a difference was a powerful takeaway for these students. Approximately 13% of students highlighted the importance of sharing impactful results with others to educate and influence their peers. This indicates an awareness of the power of communication and its role in spreading sustainability practices. About 10% of the students said that plastics are among the worst environmental pollutants. Students recognized the critical role recycling plays in reducing pollution and environmental hazards. Around 8% of the students emphasized the importance of water conservation, recognizing water as a vital resource that needs to be protected for the health of both people and the planet. Another 7% of students believed that reducing energy use could significantly help in the fight against global warming. This reflects a broader understanding of the interconnectedness between personal actions and global environmental issues. Lastly, about 4% of the students realized that adopting a plant-based lifestyle could contribute to environmental protection, mainly by reducing resource consumption and emissions associated with animal-based products.

The results suggest that the LCP fostered a relative understanding of environmental responsibility and the role of personal choices in shaping a more sustainable future. Students who completed a relatively simple, action-oriented learning activity designed around their ecological footprint significantly improved their understanding of the impact of their life choices on the environment (Cordero et al., 2008). Based on these findings, we strongly recommend the inclusion of more far-reaching sustainability concepts within educational frameworks for a more sustainable society. Our recommendation aligns with the emphasis on incorporating sustainability, particularly through participatory approaches (Ferrer-Balas et al., 2010) and the integration of sustainability into the curriculum at all levels (Lozano & Young, 2013). Integrating action-oriented learning experiences into sustainability education can help cultivate a generation equipped with the knowledge, skills, and motivation to drive meaningful environmental change.

4. Limitations

The two-week data analysis and student results were not included in the paper, as measurements were taken using different metrics, and there were too many to make inferences. Additionally, the data must first be verified to ensure accuracy in measurements and the reliable extrapolation of results to the larger campus population. As such, this study’s EF findings should not be viewed as definitive measures of students’ impact on the environment. Nonetheless, the experiment serves as an effective tool for initiating participatory discussions on environmental sustainability. It encourages students to reflect on their everyday behaviors, helping them recognize their broader environmental impact (Lozano García et al., 2006; Lozano & Young, 2013; Wals, 2014; Zilahy & Huisingh, 2009).

Also, this study was conducted as a snapshot in time, highlighting the need for future follow-up studies to monitor changes in students’ behaviors and their environmental impact over a more extended period. Additionally, this study is currently limited to introductory environmental science students. It should be expanded to include a broader campus community, including faculty and staff, to maximize its impact. The study design should incorporate broad outreach efforts utilizing multiple communication channels to engage as many participants across campus as possible.

Another clear limitation of this study is that students had limited lifestyle choices, which contributed to their high ecological footprint (EF) of 7.3 gha—nearly three times the global average of 2.6 gha. One of the most significant contributors to the high EF was individual consumption, whether in housing, goods, food, or mobility (Senbel et al., 2003). Yet, many of these factors are beyond students’ control due to financial and resource constraints that limit their ability to adopt more sustainable behaviors (Wagner & Gibberd, 2022). Efforts to promote personal responsibility for campus sustainability are further hindered by a lack of tools and guidance necessary to facilitate meaningful lifestyle changes and reduce environmental impact (Wagner & Gibberd, 2022). In a broader sense, the United States consistently records a high EF compared to that of other nations (Sheldon et al., 2011). For instance, Americans consume 24% of the world’s energy, with each citizen using as much as two Japanese, six Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 128 Bangladeshis, and 370 Ethiopians (Sheldon et al., 2011). This high level of consumption is deeply ingrained in American identity, reflecting extrinsic values that prioritize financial profit, economic growth, money, power, and status (Crompton & Kasser, 2009). These aspirations are often associated with lower environmental concern, fewer pro-environmental behaviors, and higher EFs (Brown & Kasser, 2005). However, while materialistic and extrinsic values are prevalent among some Americans, others embrace less consumption-driven lifestyles and are more supportive of ecological initiatives (Sheldon et al., 2011).

5. Conclusions

The EF and lifestyle change activities provided students with new knowledge and encouraged them to reflect critically on their ecological footprint. By incorporating daily changes into their routines, students reflected on the effectiveness of their actions. The impact of these activities extended beyond the classroom, influencing the campus community and fostering a stronger sense of collective responsibility regarding sustainability issues.

A key point emphasized in this study is that EF results may not always serve as the sole basis for a lifestyle change, as certain factors—such as financial constraints, rented housing, dietary limitations, and health issues—are beyond the students’ control. Nevertheless, through the EF activity, students reflected on their results. They made conscious changes to their lifestyles, significantly impacting their choices, regardless of which aspect of their ecological footprint they chose to reduce. It is important to emphasize that simply calculating the ecological footprint (EF) and conducting the LCP in a single class is not sufficient to create an environmentally literate populace. However, hands-on experiences that personally connect with students can be highly effective in fostering environmental literacy and a sense of personal responsibility.

While the EF calculator is a useful tool for promoting environmental awareness, translating EF results into action can be an effective technique to prompt students to reduce their environmental impacts. Our approach also plays a crucial role in communicating the importance of behavioral changes to foster more resource-conscious lifestyle choices. Our findings can contribute to the development of more in-depth campaigns to enhance campus sustainability and guide university policies toward promoting sustainable resource use.